ILI-INTp use of creative extraverted logic Te

[tcaudilllg]

If an element functions by relating objective (-) forms of itself to subjective (+) forms, then how does this relate to the function ordering in Model B? Does the creative -Te of an ILI insist on the survival of personal truth (+Te) against objective truth (-Te), or does it test the objective against the personal for the sake of validating the rightness of subjective truths?

is work, therefore -Te is the work done by the object and +Te is the work done by the subject. -Te, as an aspect, compells the work done by the subject to be responsive to it. However, what if one doesn't WANT to acclimate to the object, or what if one accepts some forms of -Te as valid, but not others? What would that mean?

[angelalala]

I'm sure there is a good idea in there, but I'm just not getting it. Could you rephrase maybe?

[liveandletlive]

god i hate plus and minus blocks

[Phaedrus]

If an element function by relating objective (-) forms of itself to subjective (+) forms, then how does this relate to the function ordering in Model B? Does the creative -Te of an ILI insist on the survival of personal truth (+Te) against objective truth (-Te), or does it test the objective against the personal for the sake of validating the rightness of subjective truths?

The problem with your views is that you express them in mumbo-jumbo language, tcaudilllg. It is nonsense to speak in terms of "objective truth" and "subjective truth". It doesn't mean anything. You must change your language.

is work, therefore -Te is the work done by the object and +Te is the work done by the subject. -Te, as an aspect, compells the work done by the subject to be responsive to it. However, what if one doesn't WANT to acclimate to the object, or what if one accepts some forms of -Te as valid, but not others? What would that mean?

This is complete mumbo-jumbo. Change your language. Now.

[Phaedrus]

I'm interested in hearing more about this, but yeah, I'm not getting the point of the OP. Also, as a general note, I tend to find actual examples that illustrate more helpful than just theory, but that's just me. Otherwise, I think things tend to get misinterpreted more. In any case, I hope to see the topic elaborated on because I am quite interested in seeing how other people see Te being played out (I have my own opinions).

Yes, actual illustrating examples are exactly what we crave for (), but the irritating LIIs refuse to give them to us. There is no way we can compare what they say with reality, and if it can't be compared with reality, then it is mumbo-jumbo.

[Ms. Kensington]

While it does indeed sound mumbo-jumbo-ish, I think it's possibly a matter of them being so enwrapped in their Ti systems and jargon that they are not always thinking that their ideas need to be shown how it actually applies in a given situation for it to be more easily understood by the majority of people who don't have that Ti understanding and need to grasp it in more applicable terms. I don't hold it against them, but thought I'd make mention of it. I admit that I got a bit fed up with this place because of the mostly Ti systematic representations (or that's how it struck me) without seeing mention of how socionics is actually observed in RL, but I've gotten more patient and am seeking to be more interactive in these forums for that reason.

i think that is what he was basically saying.

i think there is some truth to your post.

[tcaudilllg]

The reason I use Ti proper, as opposed to Te, is because Te seems more likely to be interpreted from standpoints different from my own. These interpretations hardly lead to conclusions different from my own, but they do seem to lead to conclusions that are irrelevant to my argument.

When I posit a theory, I'm not intending to argue over the evidence, but what the evidence means to the theory in question.

That's why I'm hesitant to mention my own observations, because if the integrity of my observations is questioned then I look like a fool for believing in the theory valid in the first place. Better to have people accept the theory first, then look for supporting evidence. Then they can draw their own conclusion based on what evidence they do or do not see as to the theory's authenticity.

[tcaudilllg]

I intend to, but I'm refining the question for now.

But you're more than welcome to speculate on what I may have meant.

[tcaudilllg]

Okay, well having took my time to read it, I found I understood it a lot better. In regards to the first paragraph, I think ILIs have an immense respect for objective truth but they may be inclined to scrap a truth that is widely accepted as true if by assessing the evidence and by considering an alternative viewpoint (which may or may not be wholly their own), they may hold an uncommon perception of the subject and hold a truth to be personal and will defend it by their own assessment of the evidence to at least let others know that they are not trying to be stupid but that they have their own reasons for believing such and such about such and such. (I'm being pretty damn vague myself, lol). I have often held viewpoints that were not mainstream and defended those points calmly but clearly through giving my personal assessment of the "facts" (or what were considered 'facts'). I think ILIs are able to be open-minded in the realm of thought as long as they see someone trying to make sense of the data and give reason to their thought. People who hold especially powerful beliefs why showing a hostility towards reason are seen as dangerous and I admit, it is something I can hardly wrap my mind around and has induced actual fear in me because such thinking can easily lead to horrid consequences.

As far as those who accept some 'Te' as valid and others not, it tends to depend on who and on the situation. If they have touchy beliefs and would experience rather ill effects from some bits of info that would conflict with their ideas, I wouldn't hold it against them if they wanted to know nothing of it as long as what they believe is not detrimental to others and themselves in a pronounced way. As I have said before, it's not always about being 'right' as it is being 'correct' and being correct, I feel, has more to do with how we as people are able to live our lives being strong for ourselves and others, promoting personal and societal growth, and promoting the things that really DO matter. Isn't that what Te/Fi is about? Ideas for the sake of ideas is not the point. I place a high emphasis on truth, but I'm not so foolish to believe that my sense of truth is what a certain person needs at the time. People have other concerns than with knowing everything. We have a life to live. I'm pretty tolerant towards those who don't want to discuss certain subject matter even if I think I can make a good argument for it. Sometimes it's best not to.

I believe in socionics to a large extent but hardly talk to others about it. I know the MBTI-ers generally treat it like it's nonsense, I make my case for it but if they are complacent with MBTI (this is one example), I see no need to 'convert' them so-to-speak. What I find true and efficient obviously won't be shared by everyone. Wisdom plays itself out in many ways that to the casual observer may appear contradictory until they see the effects. Sure, I imagined I was an ethical type because I take a more 'user-friendly' approach, but I was mis-informed myself. We all learn at our own pace. Shoving our ideas down other people's throats is a waste of time and effort for all parties.

The way I read that, you prefer to balance +Te aspects with -Te. You don't identify with -Te outright, but believe that one should only be compelled to accept -Te if their +Fe signals indicate a stability of their +Fi against -Fi. (that is, if it will not cause them discomfort)

What I want to know is, is this a common ILI position? Do most ILIs think that they should only attest to a truth to the degree that they think another person will accept it? Should an "inconvienient" truth be stressed whether or not people want to listen to it? (from ILI's view)

imfd95, niveK, crazedrat... all the ILIs, I'm asking for all your opinions on this. Particularly, I'm trying to deduce the "truth" behind ILI acceptance of proposed truths made from without.

@Hostage-Child: as I suspected, you got more out of surmising my meaning than you probably would have from a formal explanation by myself of what I meant. Surmising meaning may be the most effective means of communication between quasi-identicals; it's certainly how I communicate with ILIs. Surmising is only dangerous when the interpretation seems extremely radical, because in those cases there is potential for great misunderstanding. (though in those cases successful communication is probably impossible anhow). It's usually best to get a second opinion in those cases.

My own view as regard to truth, is that it forms the basis of a person's logic and thus, one's logic will only be as sound as the truth which one embraces. Thus I think one should have as much awareness of "truth" as possible. We can, after all, always choose not to think about uncomfortable truths. (that we will all die is a truth, but we don't often think about that (most of us), do we?)

[crazedrat]

its difficult to separate where what is objective and what is subjective are or are not seen to be the same thing. i mean that the limits of your awareness define the limits of your understanding of the objective world... so your subjective awareness is the limitation of your objective awareness. from here there are two possibilities- to either continually reform your subjective impressions in light of objective data, or to continually "cling" to your subjective impressions and either dismiss or ignore objective data in favor of "pushing onward" or "empowering" your subjective impressions. The former form, is the dominant function subtype (this applies to all types) approach. The latter form, is the secondary function subtype; and this is the subtype which goes "with the grain of society"... they define society; society being an unnatural adaptation to natural order, or the natural social way. The natural social way is defined by objectivity, and directly adapted social structuring (this is the XXXx social process). The dominant function subtypes are (cognitively) oppressed by society (or averted from society) in favor of the objective and natural way. So to me it (this dynamic you are describing) seems like a way of describing the different subtypes, where both can occur for a type. For dominant function subtypes, there is a tendency to destroy society in favor of reformation. The reformation is seen as a return to natural state of being. The secondary function subtype prefers to function coherently in existing states of affairs... to maintain their current social order (i.e. subjective impression).

I should add that this tendency of the dominant function subtypes to work toward returning to natural being is never wholly achieved, because it is being approached from an unnatural point of view (the types cognitive process itself)... what the dominant function subtype does, is destroys society in favor of their own personal society (which is perceived as the natural way; it is the natural way in light of the unnatural) .. where their subjective interpretation of the objective world is never wholly overturned, and they come to treat thier subjective impressions as if they were objective. (there is danger in following the objective world- to the extent you cannot see what is truly objective)

[Phaedrus]

Do most ILIs think that they should only attest to a truth to the degree that they think another person will accept it?

Absolutely not. Whether another person will accept the truth or not is totally irrelevant.

Should an "inconvienient" truth be stressed whether or not people want to listen to it? (from ILI's view)

Yes. A truth should usually be pointed out no matter the consequences and no matter the opposition. If other people find the truth "inconvenient" it is their problem, not mine. To dismiss a truth on the grounds that it feels "inconvenient" is morally wrong, and I might lose a lot of my respect for a person's intellectual abilities if the person reacts that way.

[FDG]

Absolutely not. Whether another person will accept the truth or not is totally irrelevant.


Yes. A truth should usually be pointed out no matter the consequences and no matter the opposition. If other people find the truth "inconvenient" it is their problem, not mine. To dismiss a truth on the grounds that it feels "inconvenient" is morally wrong, and I might lose a lot of my respect for a person's intellectual abilities if the person reacts that way.

What about not really giving a shit?

[Phaedrus]

What about not really giving a shit?

It depends on how important the issue is. Not giving a shit can only come into consideration in minor matters.

[tcaudilllg]

There was a typo in my original post that may have made it more difficult to read:

If an element functions by relating objective (-) forms of itself to subjective (+) forms, then how does this relate to the function ordering in Model B? Does the creative -Te of an ILI insist on the survival of personal truth (+Te) against objective truth (-Te), or does it test the objective against the personal for the sake of validating the rightness of subjective truths?

is work, therefore -Te is the work done by the object and +Te is the work done by the subject. -Te, as an aspect, compells the work done by the subject to be responsive to it. However, what if one doesn't WANT to acclimate to the object, or what if one accepts some forms of -Te as valid, but not others? What would that mean?

That should make it more understandable. In any case, you guys have proven the hypothesis that the question was intended to (blindly) test: ILIs are divided over the question of relating believed truths (+Te) to objective truths. (-Te)

I think the factor of ILI division is evidence for my hypothesis that some ILIs identify with objective truth and believe people should be made aware of it no matter what -- even if they find it disconcerting -- because the objective desires (-Fi) served by such awareness trump the subjective desire (+Fi) to live without distress over truths that are threatening, but inescapable. (such as death) Others, like Hostage_Child, believe that people should only be faced with truths they feel comfortable with, and if they do not find something comfortable then they should not be forced to face it. (this was his stated view). This view appears to me to balance +Te with -Te, but I'm not yet sure exactly how.

@Hostage_Child: I can't tell if your view is to the effect that people who for example, do not want to know a hostile army is outside the gates shouldn't be told of such, or if it's something else.

(actually, the hostile army scenario is a good concrete example of what I was talking about. -Te (the aspect) argues that everyone should know the army is there because then people will presumably be respond in a way that suits the -Fi desires of the community. (to survive) Global warming is another example: the fact that man was for long contributing to climate change (whatever the degree) was something that many people didn't want and still don't want to deal with. Should these people be forced to deal with this truth anyhow? If not, is it worth the cost to society in terms of their behavior? (if their behavior is indeed contributing to global warming?))

[crazedrat]

err, well.. i am surely the first part. although this pertains more to myself then how i interact with the world and with other people.. because what other people believe is somewhat irrelevant to me, i may find it possible to ... lie to them about an army being outside, if i were to see that this would cause trouble in the long run. the people who i am lying to (the villagers in the town or whatever) are also considered a part of objective reality which has to be dealt with. for example, if there is nothing which could be done about the situation, and them being told would make the situation less favorable then it already is.. then i would probably not tell them. but i would not lie to myself over me dying. if there was no negative effect other then their feelings involved in me telling them, i would tell them, because i would think "they will find out eventually anyway". ...
i am not so sure talking about ILI with worldly examples is very accurate

[crazedrat]

woa, crazy. are you a lesbian?

[crazedrat]

why do you say you are IEI when you seem much more ILI, and what the hell is an intuitive-sensory subtype

[tcaudilllg]

You think I am ILI? I think I am, too, even though my sarcasm has toned down in the past few years (heavy Fi development) to where people are not as offended by my reckless words because I tend to watch what I say and how I say it, but I used to act in a very much, caustic INTp fashion, not that I was bent on being a jerk, it just came out that way. The sig is one of the joke sigs that I've been seeing around. Even though I think I am one, I occasionally find myself in a situation where I come to question again based on new evidence for the other. But I realize now that real people don't always act their type in every situation.

But my real sig would say I'm 5w4 (though I scored higher on six last time I tested) and ILI Ni subtype.

What? You're IEI? AHH~! I didn't need IEI thoughts at this juncture!!! AHHH!!! Well crazedrat has chimed in anyhow.

The question now then, is whether or not phaedrus will concurr with crazedrat's viewpoint. And we're still waiting for imfd95, niveK, and others.

ILIs, would you warn of oncoming danger (as in the case of an invading army) despite the emotional distress it might incurr, and if so, would you concurr with crazedrat's opinion? Actually, let's be even more thorough and merely assume that an army is nearby. Let's say you believe it to be hostile, where some others disagree with you and say it's not. Do you continue to maintain it is hostile them in spite of their denial? What is your reaction to this denial?

[Phaedrus]

ILIs, would you warn of oncoming danger (as in the case of an invading army) despite the emotional distress it might incurr,

Yes. If there is enough evidence that the army is hostile, then the emotional stress is a minor problem. The risk of adding to people's emotional stress has some weight in the analysis, but it doesn't seem to be that important in relation to other facts.

and if so, would you concurr with crazedrat's opinion?

What exactly is crazedrat's opinion?

Actually, let's be even more thorough and merely assume that an army is nearby. Let's say you believe it to be hostile, where some others disagree with you and say it's not. Do you continue to maintain it is hostile them in spite of their denial? What is your reaction to this denial?

I would be very interested in hearing their arguments for not believing the army to be hostile. I would like to find who is right and who is wrong. I might have missed some imported piece of information that would force me to reach a different conclusion. Since I want to avoid having false beliefs, I want to correct either myself or others when we disagree. It all comes down to who has the objectively correct opinion.

If I, after having heard their arguments, still think that I am right and they are wrong, then I will of course maintain my position and state the facts as I see them. If they don't change their mind after I have pointed out the likely consequences and stressed the importance of not ignoring the truth, then at some point I will probably give up my attempts to convince them and do whatever I think is best to do in the situation. And the skeptics will ultimately have themselves to blame if they insist on being ignorant.

[crazedrat]

What? You're IEI? AHH~! I didn't need IEI thoughts at this juncture!!! AHHH!!! Well crazedrat has chimed in anyhow.

The question now then, is whether or not phaedrus will concurr with crazedrat's viewpoint. And we're still waiting for imfd95, niveK, and others.

ILIs, would you warn of oncoming danger (as in the case of an invading army) despite the emotional distress it might incurr, and if so, would you concurr with crazedrat's opinion? Actually, let's be even more thorough and merely assume that an army is nearby. Let's say you believe it to be hostile, where some others disagree with you and say it's not. Do you continue to maintain it is hostile them in spite of their denial? What is your reaction to this denial?

I would only believe it is hostile if I had good reason to believe so. Unless the others gave me adequate reason to doubt my beliefs, I would continue to believe it was hostile. If they did give me adequate reasons to doubt my belief, but not enough to completely overturn them, I would put my opinion "on hold", yet still act as if the least beneficial scenario was playing out with certainty- i.e., i would scramble to a nearby cave and hide out. I would tell the other villagers in the town the reason for my opinion the army is hostile, and if they responded with inadequate responses, I would probably pursue the argument for a few more points... depending on my particular investment in the well-being of the villagers; but once I saw the villagers would not be convinced, I would abandon my attempts of informing them, and start to look after my own ass.

...she is ILI-Ni, I can tell.

[crazedrat]

You think I am ILI? I think I am, too, even though my sarcasm has toned down in the past few years (heavy Fi development) to where people are not as offended by my reckless words because I tend to watch what I say and how I say it, but I used to act in a very much, caustic INTp fashion, not that I was bent on being a jerk, it just came out that way. The sig is one of the joke sigs that I've been seeing around. Even though I think I am one, I occasionally find myself in a situation where I come to question again based on new evidence for the other. But I realize now that real people don't always act their type in every situation.

But my real sig would say I'm 5w4 (though I scored higher on six last time I tested) and ILI Ni subtype.

This is just the current misconception of subtype differences. ILI-Ni has, in some ways, a closer relationship with Fi then they do with Te. Te is just the content for processing, where Fi is the end result of the equation. Through the processing of Te via Ni, Te is consolidated into a Fi impression.

[FDG]

but i still don't enjoy negative debates -- warnings, contradictions and such. nor i would enjoy being a type characterized by that. (although one possible interpretation is that some types are not privy to enjoying themselves -- but i find whatever cynicism i might have waning in older age, too.)

I'd also say this is partially related to levels of "health" (if we can consider getting along with people as being more healthy than not getting along with them - certainly somebody could disagree)

[tcaudilllg]

I'd also say this is partially related to levels of "health" (if we can consider getting along with people as being more healthy than not getting along with them - certainly somebody could disagree)

Indeed, this is another piece of the puzzle. Some people seem to enjoy negative situations more than others, and the question is how we can frame that tendency in terms of relationships between + and -. (I'm certain it is possible, because any debate consists of people asserting that their subjective viewpoint is in fact an objective one).

Fortunately ILIs debate everything interesting to death, so we've got lots of opportunities to get it right.

[tcaudilllg]

Well maybe. Although when you consider how alpha Fe and delta Fi work – I think it's plausible that some types, at least on average, are more prone to everyday social friction than others. perhaps depending upon the –Fe and +Fi blocings. (maybe this last point is a bit too far off in -Ti land, but I find it interesting that -Fe and +Fi are each other's background functions.)

i don't consider myself "prone to everyday social friction" btw. Some awkwardness, yes. But there is usually only friction in more opinionated situations. And typically I'm not opinionated unless it's 2+2 or black and white. (I fear the anonymity of the Internet has exposed myself and others to some things I would have better left unsaid.)

I'm not uncertain of my knowledge, but I am uncertain of my ability to convince anyone of it, or more specifically the use in even trying. So I generally think everyone's better off if I apply it somehow (-- tangibly, where tangible application is contrasted with verbal "corrections" and such.)


There's another point I had -- what I said about "passiveness". I may not have the energy of some, but I still consider myself about as active as most -- or at least I try to be. And it's disparaging when I'm not.

Having a dual that does a bunch of high-activity things while typically I "warn" them from the sidelines – well that would add insult to injury, pour salt into the wounds, etc. etc. Yet that's largely how ILI-SEE duality works.

And moreover it works chaotically – the EP temperament. I've said before I don't like chaotic people. To my knowledge, nothing else I've said has revealed otherwise. To relate this back to one of tcau's original points – I may value truthfulness, but I also value a sort of restraint in others – so that I don't have to constantly warn them about the consequences of their actions. (I'd rather be active myself.)


I don't think these are very "interesting" points of mine though. Nor am I intent on "debating them to death". I've been pretty consistently averse to the ILI typing since it was first suggested for me. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced of it -- but every point raised so far has done little for me to that end.

If you choose me as a prototypical ILI, and if it skews your understanding of ILI's in the process -– I guess that's your prerogative. Frankly I think there are better things I could be doing for myself and for others around me than arguing over that.

@imfd95: why do you feel unable to convince others of your knowledge? Do you feel it is without foundation, or that you are unable to convey the logic which validates the determination that something is true in a particular case?

[FDG]

Well maybe. Although when you consider how alpha Fe and delta Fi work – I think it's plausible that some types, at least on average, are more prone to everyday social friction than others. perhaps depending upon the –Fe and +Fi blocings. (maybe this last point is a bit too far off in -Ti land, but I find it interesting that -Fe and +Fi are each other's background functions.)

i don't consider myself "prone to everyday social friction" btw. Some awkwardness, yes. But there is usually only friction in more opinionated situations. And typically I'm not opinionated unless it's 2+2 or black and white. (I fear the anonymity of the Internet has exposed myself and others to some things I would have better left unsaid.)

I'm not uncertain of my knowledge, but I am uncertain of my ability to convince anyone of it, or more specifically the use in even trying. So I generally think everyone's better off if I apply it somehow (-- tangibly, where tangible application is contrasted with verbal "corrections" and such.)


There's another point I had -- what I said about "passiveness". I may not have the energy of some, but I still consider myself about as active as most -- or at least I try to be. And it's disparaging when I'm not.

Having a dual that does a bunch of high-activity things while typically I "warn" them from the sidelines – well that would add insult to injury, pour salt into the wounds, etc. etc. Yet that's largely how ILI-SEE duality works.

And moreover it works chaotically – the EP temperament. I've said before I don't like chaotic people. To my knowledge, nothing else I've said has revealed otherwise. To relate this back to one of tcau's original points – I may value truthfulness, but I also value a sort of restraint in others – so that I don't have to constantly warn them about the consequences of their actions. (I'd rather be active myself.)


I don't think these are very "interesting" points of mine though. Nor am I intent on "debating them to death". I've been pretty consistently averse to the ILI typing since it was first suggested for me. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced of it -- but every point raised so far has done little for me to that end.

If you choose me as a prototypical ILI, and if it skews your understanding of ILI's in the process -– I guess that's your prerogative. Frankly I think there are better things I could be doing for myself and for others around me than arguing over that.

I don't know if the second part was aimed at me or at tcaudlig - but anyway over time my opinion of your type (just an opinion, mind you, far from being certain) switched to ENTj (mixed subtype?)

[crazedrat]

@imfd95: why do you feel unable to convince others of your knowledge? Do you feel it is without foundation, or that you are unable to convey the logic which validates the determination that something is true in a particular case?

well... i have the same problem and, and for me it is (I think) because I would have to explain everything in my memory relative to the issue at hand in order to justify what it is I think or am saying. This can become a tedious task because many times the things which I am using in my memory are scattered apart / not, at first glance, very apparently relative to one another. So it may take like... a whole essay on how certain things are relative to one another, before even starting on explaining. At this point people stop listening; and it really takes alot of energy to do this anyway .. I remember one time i turned a philosophy paper into an intj professor I had.. he gave me a B, and his comments on the paper were: "you have four pages worth of premises and one paragraph worth of conclusion"

[tcaudilllg]

well... i have the same problem and, and for me it is (I think) because I would have to explain everything in my memory relative to the issue at hand in order to justify what it is I think or am saying. This can become a tedious task because many times the things which I am using in my memory are scattered apart / not, at first glance, very apparently relative to one another. So it may take like... a whole essay on how certain things are relative to one another, before even starting on explaining. At this point people stop listening; and it really takes alot of energy to do this anyway .. I remember one time i turned a philosophy paper into an intj professor I had.. he gave me a B, and his comments on the paper were: "you have four pages worth of premises and one paragraph worth of conclusion"

Double or single-spaced?

Best to just rely on context to get your point across when the concept is complicated. Of course, there are those who will argue that you don't have valid premises for your beliefs because they do not understand context. I don't really care about those people, though, nor should they be allowed to grade college papers.

I will say that your crosstype arguments are about as convoluted as Jung's; you can see pretty much anything you want in them, and never begin to actually get the idea. I don't think this is common to INTps, actually, because any way you slice it I can't make sense of what you're saying. I do get a general sense of what you say though without understanding the specifics. I've concluded that you have a better understanding of the comprehensiveness of the functions than most; the XXXx is after all the Fi aspect incarnate, the spectrum of chronic personality traits. I think your sense of holism would be useful for understanding other aspects, as well.

(just for the record, I embraced that vague, mysteriously interconnected style myself for a time, but I was copying Jung in a sense when I did it -- his style, specifically. I was quite enamoured with him at the time. It's not my native writing style... but it was really all I could manage trying to make sense of something drawn from Jung's papers -- he had that same trait as yours of dual-seeking self-observation, and something vaguely presented must be processed vaguely...).